The sounds of silenzzzzzzz . . .

Yeah, sorry, I know I should, but I really don't give a tuppence about Bernie Sanders or the 2016 presidential election in the United States.

Oh, I can still vote in the U.S., a fact I seem to have to keep reminding Americans of. I just have a work permit for Canada after all; I didn't have to give up my citizenship to move here.

Nor would I do so, despite recently having begun the process of applying for permanent residency here. I miss the United States. More than I thought I would. It is still home, and I still worry about it. Is it eating alright? Is it getting along with others? Is it happy? Has it killed anyone lately, by accident or on purpose? Or is it just constantly bickering for no discernible reason--despite unemployment having dropped to under 5% for the first time in god knows when, despite enjoying a number of other common indicators of a successful economic climate? Certainly more successful than the economy we have in Canada at the moment.

And yet, watch the news on CNN or MSNBC (but, please, not Fox News) or read it online (but avoid the comments section if you can) and everyone seems angry and miserable. Or at least those talking politics or attending political rallies seem so. It is a self-selecting group, so who can say for sure?

I wouldn't vote for a Republican if all the candidates promised me a non-stop winter weekend in sun-dappled Mexico with my favorite porn star, guilt-free, room service, and all necessary accoutrements on tap. (That would be mid-1990s super Southern stud Sam Crockett, in case anyone wants to know, but I can make other suggestions if he is unavailable.) I think there's a certain segment in the U.S. that's still living with this fantasy of the Rockefeller Republican of long ago--fiscally conservative but socially benign. I'm not sure that manor house baron ever existed, although Dwight Eisenhower is perhaps a better exemplifier than any one of the Rockefellers.

Instead what we seem to have is some time-warped brigade of evangelical Dixiecrat-wannabes, George Wallaces (the white one) without a cause (except the misanthropic, middle-class Caucasian): Race bait, shoot from the lip, and by all means be as mean-spirited as possible when it comes to judging others' behaviors without paying too much attention to your own.

Or you get Donald Trump, whose all of that but without the God. 'Cuz, like, he and God are best friends, and God is amaaaaazing but God's knows he's not nearly as great as Donald Trump . . . .

(Not an actual quote . . . yet.)

Turning to the not-Republicans, aka the Democrats, we have . . . heavy sigh. Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

I know I'm supposed to like Hilary. In fact, I clearly remember my frenemy Spencer for Let chastising me way back in 2007 for being an on-the-fence Barack Obama supporter. Over dinner, he proceeded to brow-beat me and bad-mouth anyone for their positive spins on Obama's candidacy. Clearly, I did not understand--but desperately needed to!--that Hilary was the far superior candidate.

I don't know if that tipped me over the fence into the Obama ballpark, but it happened soon thereafter. It wouldn't surprise me if that was the defining moment--or at the moment that made me consider more closely my choice--as ol' Spence has done a great job over the years of brow-beating my opinions over various and sundry. (I distinctively remember making a passing remark about enjoying the American/Canadian version of Queer as Folk, an opinion I came to later in the series run, which then provoked an extended lesson on why I was morally wrong to like the show. That ol' Spence. He has a way with humanity.)

At this point, in 2016, I'll concede that Hilary's the most experienced candidate and would have less of a learning curve than any of the other players on the field. Way back in 2007, I think she might have had a few more years of a U.S. Senate career under her belt than Obama, but counting her time as First Lady as being equal to bonafide POTUS experience makes only slightly more sense as Sarah Palin claiming she had foreign policy experience because Alaska is located next door to Russia.

But I could deal with a Hilary presidency. She's not my favorite, but I hardly think she's the horrifying shrewish mother/anti-mother figure that Conservatives imagine in their nightmares. Or dreams. Hey, Conservatives are a freaky bunch.

But I don't think I can deal with another Bill Clinton presidency--and you just know he won't be able to stop himself from inserting into every nookie and granny cranny of Hilary's administration. Everyone seems to remember Bill fondly, at home and abroad, except me. He was a liar and a womanizer back then, I suspect he's the same now (just more discreet), and he'll continue to be so in the afterlife. The thought of him being anywhere near a whore house, let alone the White House, should be cause for alarm.

* * *

And yet I am no fan of Bernie Sanders either, and I'm not sure I really, fully understand why. I mean, policy-wise, we are not in disagreement. I'm all for more affordable education and universal healthcare. (I would ask, "who wouldn't be?" but I'm afraid this would show how far I've fallen from American grace.) I do think Bernie over-imagines his potential effectiveness as POTUS. For pity's sake, people went berserk over Obama's moderate changes. What would they do with an actual, self-professed socialist in the Oval Office?

Then again, Bernie's not black, which has always seemed to me to be the reason that those who have a problem with Obama have a problem with Obama. Maybe the unconventional senator from Vermont can pull it off, but I feel doubtful over both his policies and his background. In 241 years of American history, we've had one moderate Catholic president and one moderate African-American president, and people nearly crapped a cinder block over both. I can only imagine the eruption over a secular Jewish socialist hippie from Vermont talking "revolutionary" politics.

In large part, I think my problem with Sanders is twofold--

The first fold--see above. I really can't see anyone, establishment or hoi polloi, to the right of Eleanor Roosevelt easily digesting a Sanders presidency. Should it even come to pass--and I think that's about as likely as it was for McGovern to have won in 1972.

The second fold (which is manifold--so much so that we're practically on the verge of origami)--I'm exhausted from hearing a certain subset of friends praise Sanders every time he makes up as much as a grocery list. I have a couple of Facebook friends who are relentlessly, slavishly Sanderistas, a-quiver at every statement, pronouncement, or offhand remark made by el Comandante. There is no escaping their zealotry for a guy, who, frankly, I consider passionate and opinionated, but not much else.

I think you have to have more than passion and opinions to be a leader. Otherwise, you're Ron Paul. Or worse, you're Donald Trump.

Some might argue that Obama spawned the same kind of zealotry. I would not, however. Oh, there are people who would blindly follow him to the ends of the earth and the ends of time, no doubt. The difference is that Obama, in my view, is less about the cult and more about being the actual president to everyone, not just those who agree with him.

His handlers and celebrity fans, sure, they're all about the cult. But at the end of the day, I have always thought of Obama as just a decent, incredibly intelligent, and poised man who has tried hard to do the right thing. Not just African Americans. Not just gays. Not just business. Not just liberals. Everyone.

As the saying goes, you can't please everyone. Or sometimes even anyone. And during the Obama age, this has shown itself to be true.

Do I think he's perfect? Have I liked everything he's done? Have I been bothered by things that I didn't think he did well enough. No, no, and yep.

A case in point: I feel that his administration could have done more to address the growing inequality in the U.S. Nonetheless, he's done a lot to be sure, and if he accomplished nothing more for the rest of his life than getting the Affordable Care Act done, then he's a genius and a statesman and deserves our praise and generosity for the ages to come.

I also feel like criticizing him about not doing more to address inequality is a bit unfair. For one, the U.S. Congress, one of our many national shames, actively and unabashedly fought him and undermined him over everything he proposed, large and small. For another, it's not like "let's fix inequality" has been the zeitgeist; rather, most of us were focused on getting back on our own two feet following the Great Recession. We didn't have much time, energy, or interest to think about anyone else's plight. let alone legislating to improve it.

* * *

I've been thinking about Ronald Reagan lately, not something I care to do, honestly. I despised him and I loathe his legacy, but he certainly left us with a mark--a very dark, costly, punishing, simplistic, and selfish one--that continues to color our judgment and cover up our reality. Call it what you will--conservatism, neo-conservatism, the love of "freedom" (especially the free market and laissez-faire economic policy), "making America great again," etc. ad nauseum--it all sounds like bullshit to me. It has left us with a legacy of inequality, one that we can't seem to surmount. And it has left us with a clown's parade of politicos who have had to live up to or live down Reagan's "simple solutions" of low taxes for the rich, no money for social services, trickle down economics, and free reign to markets and evangelicals. Even Bill Clinton continued to follow much of this trajectory, at least when he wasn't schtupping secretaries and lounge singers.

Will Obama leave us with a legacy that is different and fairer than before? I hope so. I don't know if he's been able to make his mark as strongly as Reagan did, but then Reagan had more support, politically and popularly. Advocating selfishness tends to succeed more than advocating respect for humanity.

Obama, on the other hand, has had to deal with the Know-Nothing age of Republican politics and the standard set of weak-willed Democrats. He has succeeded in many ways, despite this, but unfortunately, I don't feel as though he's been able to graft this progressiveness and humanity on the American body politic. Time will tell, and I pray that time will tell me that I'm wrong.

Who would be a likely, worthy successor to Obama? I haven't a clue. Both Hilary and Bernie have their pluses and minuses, and maybe either/or will do a stellar job, should we be so lucky to find ourselves with this option come the fall. Hilary has more baggage than I would prefer. In addition, she seems to have the resolve of a willow tree in a hurricane. By that I mean she is tough and resilient but will bend whichever way the wind blows. For me, she lacks authenticity.

Bernie's got authenticity, but is it an authenticity that we want? His baggage seems to have gotten stuck on a luggage carousel at an airport outside of Woodstock, circa 1969.

A case in point: He recently chose a Simon and Garfunkel song for a campaign ad, which, naturally, the left has gone all verklempt over. All I can say is I hope someone tells him Jerry Garcia's dead before he invites him to serve as Vice President.

Please, for the love of Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix, let's not have another American presidential election where we battle out the unresolved issues of the 1960s once again. Heck, I'm in my 50s, and even I'm not that nostalgic.

An open letter to Pittsburgh Cable News Channel (PCNC)

Dear Advertising and Public Affairs Divisions of PCNC:

Regarding the commercial aired Tuesday, October 30, between 7:30 and 7:45 AM, to my knowledge the President of the United States is not a "baby-killer," as claimed by Jane Roe/Norma Leah McCorvey. Rather the President and the administration uphold what is currently law in the United States, the right for access to the medical procedure known as abortion.

I assume, as a commercial enterprise, you do not necessarily support every item or issue advertised on your channel. Nonetheless, as a commercial enterprise using the federally administered broadcasting spectrum, I would think you would bear some responsibility for inaccurate and inflammatory statements made and transmitted via your station. To allow a commercial in which the speaker states, "Do not vote for Barack Obama, he is a baby-killer," is not merely offensive and untrue (to my knowledge, the President has not personally performed abortions in the White House or other locales) but also dangerous. Abortion generates a great deal of emotional distress, especially among those opposed to it. Calling the President a "baby-killer" would seem to be waving the proverbial red flag in front of those highly opposed to the matter.

Thus, I would respectfully request you reconsider airing this advertisement on your channel. Surely your need for advertising revenue is not so great as to broadcast content such as this.

Thank you.

Mitt-piphanies

Photo by c.berlet/publiceye.org; courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

An afternoon's worth of random musings about Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and current candidate for the Republican nomination for the 2012 U.S. presidential election. (Or some such.)

Trust me, despite the constant score updates for the current political dodgeball game in progress, I try to think about Mitt as little as is humanly possible. But Mitt is almost refreshingly creepy/crappy compared to the hideous shitty-ness offered up in heaping, musky piles by the likes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, et al. (John Huntsman doesn't offend me--yet--but practically no one's heard him speak.)

* * *

After posting on Facebook last night that I was mock-horrified to see ol' Mitt on the cover of Parade (the magazine that arrives as an insert in your Sunday newspaper, at least if you live in the U.S.) in blue jeans and a blue-and-white checked shirt (very baseball, hotdogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet, n'est-ce pas?) but still with that vulgar, it-came-from-the-'80s oiled hair à la Michael Douglas as Gordon Gecko in Wall Street, a friend pointed out to me that Mitt has a son named Tagg.

Tagg? WTF kind of name is Tagg for a kid, no matter how to-the-beehive-manor-born and oleaginous his father might be? As yet another friend quipped, "Did the Romney family use the same baby-naming book as Sarah Palin?"

Tagg. Gah.

Why not tattoo the word "PUTZ" on the child's forehead as a babe, toss him out of a moving vehicle, and let him fend for himself?


Which got me to thinking--does everyone in Mitt's family have a one-syllable name with a vowel followed by double consonants?

Tagg, Nett, Mitt, Sott, Rutt, and sometimes Kytt?

* * *

I find it kind of funny ha-ha and funny strange, too, that only now am I starting to hear the dreaded "flip-flopper" label applied to the Generously Anointed One. Maybe I wasn't paying attention or maybe the Repubs figured that this time the alleged taint of Mormonism (please, like any of the Protestant or Catholic candidates have any reason to be sanctimonious about their beliefs) wasn't going to rub off and rub out Mitt's chances at the polls.

So, now, finally, Mitt's naysayers have whipped out their giant spatula and are making like a pancake with the flip-flopper label. Tee hee. Too late.

First of all, duh. When Mitt was governor of the Bay State he was pro-abortion and pro-gay rights, perfectly in line with the majority of the Commonwealth's populace. Now that he is running for POTUS (twice, no less), he's agin' both. Perfectly in line with the rabid-and-likely-to-vote members of his own party and assorted independents and probably a number of silent-but-deadly Dems as well.

But no duh. I think Mitt's record on the issues just goes to prove that he has no record on the issues. In other words, Mitt's no flip-flopper. You have to be able to flip in the first place in order to flop.

* * *

Despite this needling, ribbing, poking, and many other descriptions that probably sound dirty to most Republican candidates, I sorta kinda feel sorry for the Mittster. In these moments, when I think of Mitt, I'm reminded of a joke my North Carolina frenemy Spencer likes to tell:

Q. What does a pretty Southern Belle say to let all the gentleman know that she is "in the mood"?

A. "I'm drunk, y'all!"

Q. What does an ugly Southern Belle say to let all the gentleman know that she is "in the mood"?

A. "I SAID, 'I'm drunk, y'all!'"

That joke may improve when you hear me do it in dialect or when you've had a little to drink yourself. But you get the idea. No matter how many times or how loudly Mitt tells everyone that he's drunk, no one, I repeat no one, wants to see what's under that hoop skirt.

'Cause I suspect Mitt is mostly just flop.

The man who would be . . .

. . . Prom king. And I'm not sure at this late date he's even qualified for that.

As a former proud resident of the Lone Star State, it's difficult for me to fathom Rick Perry's appeal as a candidate on The Dating Game, let alone for President of the United States of America--a less-than-perfect union he eschewed and threatened to secede from should the federal government actually do its job.

It was a bizarre moment when he uttered those hard words and any number of ones since then. Truth be told, when my and Rick's worlds more or less peacefully coexisted in the early Naughties, he seemed like kind of a cypher, sort of a lighter-than-a-feather version of George Dubya.

I'll let that sink in for a bit.

*Crickets chirping*

*For, like, hours*

And we're back.

So why the sudden change in personality, Rick? You seem more aggressive, surly, and rigid, sort of the Lone Star equivalent of Doc Jekyll and Cowboy Hyde. Are you chafing in the extreme Texas heat? Is it the male menopause? Or are you just frightened by the possibility of having to live out your dying days in dry-as-dust Paint Creek or Peahen Lick or Possum Shizzle or wherever the hell you came from?

I'm assuming its a sudden change of life. Admittedly, I haven't paid any attention to you since I left Texas in 2004.

In the early years of "the Rick," the only passionate agenda I remember Perrypuss in a fervor over was this wild-ass plan to build super-highways and super-railways all over Texas, none of which actually went into the cities but, instead, went around them. I was never sure how anyone was supposed to get from the train station to downtown or anywhere else people might actually frequent or live, given Texas's aversion to urban mass transit (the very nice DART system in Dallas excepted). But, then, a little old thing like public access never stopped anyone anywhere in the U.S. from sticking an airport out in Palooka Palisades and expecting you to float a loan to pay for parking.

So failed über-transportation systems aside, and a tendency to be quick with the lethal injection excepted, apparently now God wants Rick Perry to run for national office, Prom King of these here U.S. of A. Divine intervention and inspiration! I'll be sure to try that reasoning for all future, questionably-reached decisions. When I call in sick for work at a future date. "God wants me to stay home until Mad Men returns to TV in January." May I get scads of unchecked funding from the Koch Brothers and endless hours of media coverage from Fox & Friends for my pronouncement.

Of course, he's Governor Goodhair, 1980s edition, with that Marlboro Man squint and firm, square jaw. But, honestly, brown hair, brown eyes, brown tie, brown suit? In this photo, he looks like he's been styled by exceptionally hapless children from the Texas School for the Chromatically Impaired. What, was an all-beige ensemble unavailable that day?


Nonetheless, let it never be said that, as an equal-opportunity nation, we Americans discriminate against The Handsome Community, no matter how questionably apparelled. Never! In our fair-to-middlin' nation, even poorly attired but well-funded, narrow-minded, former male cheerleaders who at midlife turn to God and politics can succeed! Twice over!

Praise!